September 18, 2018 | International, Aerospace

Newly retired head of Air Force Materiel Command talks about the org’s future challenges

WASHINGTON — Over the course of her 40-year career with the U.S. Air Force, Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski has worn many hats, going from the manager of the service's airborne laser program to its chief buyer of space technology to — finally — the head of Air Force Materiel Command.

Through it all she was a proud and self-described nerd: an avid science and technology proponent happy to talk about anything from trends in military satellites to how the Air Force was tackling the problem of hypoxia.

Pawlikowski officially retired from the Air Force in early September and is now transitioning to a career in the private sector, having already accepted a place on Raytheon's board of directors. She spoke with Defense News on Sept. 10 about some of AFMC's biggest prospective challenges.

As you look at Air Force Materiel Command now, what advice would you give your successor?

The first thing is to just remember — and I know everybody says this — but there are just amazing airmen at AFMC, and you have to really trust them to get the job done. They care so much about what we do that that makes the job easy.

But I think my advice is you have to recognize just how massive the responsibility is. There's really nothing that goes on in the Air Force that Air Force Materiel Command isn't involved with in some way. And I know I did not have an appreciation for that when I first took command. I was obviously very much aware of the technology side of things and the acquisition side of things, but everything from the Civil Engineering Center that's responsible for all of the milcon projects in the Air Force to the services agency which runs things like all of the dining facilities.

It's a huge job with a wide breadth of impact. All of us come into these jobs with our background in one particular area, and that's our area where you have a tendency to migrate to, but you have to recognize that AFMC has such vast responsibilities that you have to really make sure that you don't get yourself involved in one area that you don't have the time to really take on and cover everything that needs to be done.

When I look at where the Air Force is and the future of the Air Force, there's just tremendous opportunities for AFMC to be helping the Air Force, and in many cases leading the Air Force in these transformations that we're trying to do. The whole focus on multidomain for Air Force, for example: AFMC has to play a critical role in that as we cut across all of the different aspects of what the Air Force does.

The drive to promote and encourage more innovation and what I consider creativity among our airmen — that is something that AFMC has got to help to facilitate. Because there is such opportunities to make sure that we're successful in doing that, but also doing no harm.

What role do you see AFMC having in multidomain?

I think the place that really hits the most is in the Life Cycle Management Center. The Life Cycle Management Center is really structured to be aligned under the program executive officers, and the program executive officers are all aligned by platforms. We've got fighter, bomber, mobility, tanker. So within the Life Cycle Management Center, those things don't come together until you're above the PEO.

So the challenge and opportunity for the Life Cycle Management Center is to be able to still deliver on all those individual products, but [also] to be able to provide the connectivity between those different programs so that we get the interoperability, the connectiveness between the different platforms while they are in development, not after it happens and then we try to figure out how we're going to put them together.

But we have neither really thought about and structured ourselves to do it that way. We've always been structured as the platform as the center of attention. So I think there is a huge opportunity for the Life Cycle Management Center to be the key facilitator for establishing that connectivity, but that's going to take a lot of work, and to a degree some cultural change — and maybe even some change in the way the Air Force programs and budgets [its] dollars.

What specifically could the Life Cycle Management Center do to become that connective tissue between programs?

They're going to have to be the ones that — using, maybe some oldspeak — establish the standards, establish the interfaces, establish the architecture, establish the data structure that is going to enable us to connect things. They have to, to a degree, be the Microsoft and the Apple when it comes to things being able to just connect and work.

The Air Force recently started doing some of the depot maintenance work on its legacy E-8C JSTARS fleet after a couple of problems with the Northrop Grumman depot, which has been struggling with quality control issues. How is the work currently divided?

Right now we're in the crawl phase when it comes to the organic side of things. We have inducted, as you know, one airplane down at Warner Robins [Air Force Base]. That happened just before I left. My last day on active duty was the 9th of August, so I haven't had an update on the progress ... but what we're trying to do is to make sure that we have other options other than just the one facility to be able to maintain these aircraft.

Based on the latest defense authorization for 2019, there's a requirement in there that we keep these, so we need to be able to have the capacity to bring them in. And what we've found through the work with Northrop was that, as hard they were trying, we just couldn't seem to get over the hump of being able to consistently deliver them in a timely manner. And we just needed to have some other options. So what we've done at Robins is to bring in one that doesn't require a lot of the major work, but is something we believe that the Robins workforce can do.

We were kind of pleasantly surprised when we first started to look at this, in the fact that — we kind of looked across the workforce to see how much experience we have on JSTARS, and not an insignificant number of our civilian workforce down there whose part-time job is the Air National Guard on the other side of the runway. So we actually have a fair amount of knowledge of the airplane right down there on the Air Force base.

So what I see happening in the future, as the Air Force works through what we're going to do to maintain those planes as we move forward on Air Battle Management, is going to be probably a split between the two. I don't think you're ever going to see the Air Force completely — well, never say never — but I would be surprised if, in the near future, that the Air Force would completely walk away from the Northrop facility because there is tooling and things like that that the Air Force just doesn't have, at least right now, at Robins.

You recently said in another interview that the light-attack aircraft program of record could be as small as 20 planes. Could you explain why the Air Force is considering such a small buy?

I would see a model there where we would buy 20 or so per year, and then when they got to the point where they were not sustainable anymore — just like your telephone or microwave (who gets a microwave repaired these days?) — we would not invest in a huge organic [maintenance] capability. I don't want to be in the position with light attack that I am with JSTARS.

And so what my point was is that we wouldn't buy massive numbers of these in a big chunk. We would buy them on a regular basis and then when they became unsupportable because of their age, we wouldn't try to maintain them. We would either sell them or put them in the boneyard — probably sell them since there will probably be a good market for them. But that was my point. The number of 20, when I was talking about it, had more to do with how many we might buy in a given year as opposed to the total number.

The discussion is still out there as to how many light-attack versus high-performance aircraft [you need] because there's only so much money, right? The money we spend on light attack may buy more airplanes, but you have to look at capability and what capability we need. So how many we totally actually buy.

I leave that up to folks like [Air Force Chief of Staff] Gen. [Dave] Goldfein and [Air Combat Command head] Gen. [Mike] Holmes, who are the ones who need to make that assessment of what airplanes they need to perform the mission. My point only was that we shouldn't go out and buy 300 of these in one year and then spend 25, 30 years trying to maintain old airplanes.

The Air Force recently has been using 3D printing to solve a lot of problems it's been having with spare parts for older airframes, like printing a toilet seat cover for the C-5 Galaxy, which would have taken more than $10,000 to otherwise replicate. But are there still barriers to using 3D printing for certain applications where you think it would be useful?

I do believe that you will see more and more 3D printing done, particularly for some of these older airplanes, as we have to figure out how to reverse engineer parts in order to keep them flying. The challenges that we've found as we've gone forward on this is, first of all, we have to make sure that we don't get wrapped up in what I call the hype of 3D printing. 3D printing can be a tremendous tool, but it's not for everything.

Certain materials are harder to 3D print than others, and so we're going to need some more science to figure out how to 3D print certain kinds of metals, but what I think we have found and the tremendous work that both the Air Force Research Lab and the Life Cycle Management Center have been doing is, first, the Air Force Research Lab is making sure that we understand the science behind it.

Because in 3D printing in some cases you're using these powders that are created from metals. And those powders have certain characteristics. And it's just like when we order a part, we have to make sure we know how to order the materials for 3D printing and, if you will, the specs, the standards for 3D printing that will enable us to consistently get the same thing.

So there's a lot of hard work that needs to be done to make 3D printing something that we do on a daily basis. And that's what Air Force Materiel Command has focused on.

So what's next for you? I see you've accepted a place on Raytheon's board of directors.

My objective is to first and foremost to be able to spend more time with my family, which has been a challenge for me over the years, as these jobs are not easy. As my dad used to say: “You have a 24/7 job.” I don't know if he realized how true that is, especially as you get more senior in rank.

I plan to probably get involved in a couple other boards and do some advising and consulting. I still consider myself part of what I call the American Geek Squad. I'm a member of the National Academy of Engineering. So I will hopefully get an opportunity to continue to contribute in different forms where I can advise as opposed to the person that's doing everything.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/air-force-association/2018/09/12/newly-retired-head-of-air-force-materiel-command-talks-about-the-orgs-future-challenges

On the same subject

May 4, 2020 | International, Land

Russian Arms Production Slowed by Coronavirus, Analysts Find
A report drawing on anonymized phone data, and other open-source information belies Vladimir Putin's everything's-under-control message. Many Russian arms factories are slowing their production amid the COVID-19 pandemic, according to a report from geospatial analytics company Orbital Insight, obtained exclusively by Defense One. The revelations further undermine Moscow's attempts to project an image of a government in control of the coronavirus outbreak in its country. Among the affected firms: Salyut, which makes parts for Russia's Su-27 and China's Chengdu J-10 fighter jets, has 2,000 fewer people in the factory, as indicated by cell phone pings. Uralvagonzavod, which makes parts for the T-90 and the T-14 Armata tanks, had 3,500 fewer people. Hydromash, which makes landing gear parts, hydraulics, and cylinders for the Su-30MK and Su-34 fighters, has more than 2,000 fewer people. Not every Russian firm has been visibly affected. The Orbital Insight report saw no evidence of a productivity dropoff at the Kazan Aircraft Plant, which makes parts for strategic bomber aircraft. The analysts applied machine learning and data science to anonymous phone data obtained from a variety of partners. Such data can allow researchers to track large-scale human movement trends in close to real-time, which can “inform policymakers as to the effect of a particular restriction — or the impact/consequence of a breach of the same,” said Robert Cardillo, an Orbital Insight advisor who once ran the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. Researchers use the data to establish a baseline of activity, then to look for aberrations and disruptions, Cardillo told Defense One in an email. “In the intelligence profession, job one is to understand normal so one can have any chance of detecting abnormal. [Orbital Insight] senses global activity — or lack thereof — in a way that enables an understanding of the baseline pattern of life. That foundational understanding enables not just the fact of a change in that pattern but to — more importantly — infer meaning,” he wrote. The report offers detail about slowdowns beyond what Russian media has already revealed, said Michael Kofman, a senior research scientist at CNA, a nonprofit research and analysis organization in Arlington, Virginia. Kofman said he was surprised at the company's ability to obtain Russian cell phone data, which is required by law to be stored on servers in Russia. “The fact that this company is able to aggregate anonymous cell use data is a real boon for those interested in the level of productivity and output in Russia's military-industrial complex,” he said. Overall, Kofman said, he expects “a significant drop off in production for at least two months in the Russia defense industry as a result of COVID-19 measures, but it will be highly uneven depending on the region and assembly plant/shipyard.” The Russian government has tried to project an image of a country little affected by the coronavirus. In March and the beginning of April, the government flew protective equipment and medical supplies to Italy and to the United States in what many call a propaganda ploy. But government officials now acknowledge that they are experiencing a shortage of protective equipment, The country has confirmed that it has more than 100,000 confirmed cases. Babel Street, a data analytics company that specializes in natural language and sentiment data, says the government's initial steps were popular with Russians. But analysis of Russian-language social media posts on platforms like VK and local blogs suggest that Russian President Vladimir Putin's image has been slipping. “There was a ton of positive sentiment early on. People were buying the government line that Russia was here to help the world. I think that things really began to sour when they saw friends and neighbors coming down with this disease,” said McDaniel Wicker, Babel Street's vice president of business development. Russians are growing increasingly anxious with lockdown conditions, Wicker said. An April 20 street protest in Vladikavkaz could be a sign of civil unrest to come. “We are able to get a lot of insights from some of our data sources showing social unrest popping up in some of those areas...before it began to pop up in the English language press,” he said. “There's a narrative in Western media that Putin is all-powerful,” he said. “This shows that to be a misconception. The state does not have infinite means, information, or even control over its population. Given the right circumstances, there could be significant change in Russia.” https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2020/05/russian-arms-production-slowed-coronavirus-analysts-find/165071
November 19, 2021 | International, C4ISR, Security

DoD SBIR/STTR Component BAA Pre-Release: Army SBIR BAA 21.4, Topics A214-045 through A214-51
The DoD Small Business and Technology Partnerships Office announces the pre-release of the following Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) topics: Army SBIR 21.4 SBIR Topic A214-045: “Graph Neural Networks (GNN) for UxS Collaborative Agent Control,” published at https://sam.gov/opp/178e0311b4d04df2bf25025d5c99473d/view SBIR Topic A214-046: “Synthetic RF Training Data Generation,” published at https://sam.gov/opp/fa78f3dd832249ec925b092246c8ed0f/view SBIR Topic A214-047: “Height of Burst scoring through Machine Learning,” published at https://sam.gov/opp/e94aafd959174ec2882511ace4c3e939/view SBIR Topic A214-048: “Machine Learning (ML) for Breach Routing,” published at https://sam.gov/opp/f8c317353e0547f5b139fb87016075af/view SBIR Topic A214-049: “Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML) for Radio Frequency (RF) Modulation Recognition,” published at https://sam.gov/opp/84a904f180234f85bc861a604844c8d8/view SBIR Topic A214-050: “Natural Language Processing+,” published at https://sam.gov/opp/a27caede2da442ce86ec6f52c2aa13f1/view SBIR Topic A214-051: “Asynchronous Neuromorphic Digital Readout Circuit for Infrared Cameras for Autonomous Target Acquisition and Autonomous Vehicles,” published at https://sam.gov/opp/b8c670091b7947ca99658c48f62e0621/view IMPORTANT DATES: November 16, 2021: Topics pre-release November 16, 2021: Topic Q&A opens to questions November 30, 2021: Topics open, begin submitted proposals in DSIP December 21, 2021: Topic Q&A closes to new questions at 12:00 pm ET January 4, 2022: Topics close, full proposals must be submitted in DSIP no later than 12:00 p.m. ET Full topics and instructions are available at the links provided above.
September 26, 2018 | International, C4ISR

Members of Congress look to make AI a priority
By: Jessie Bur Congress and the executive branch need to make a more concerted effort to address and prepare for the rise of artificial intelligence, Reps. Will Hurd, R-Texas, and Robin Kelly, D-Ill., said in a white paper released Sept. 25. The congressmen, who serve as the chairman and ranking member of the House IT Subcommittee, compiled information gathered in past congressional hearings and meetings with experts to argue for the criticality of federal input in the many facets of AI. “In light of that potential for disruption, it's critical that the federal government address the different challenges posed by AI, including its current and future applications. The following paper presents lessons learned from the Subcommittee's oversight and hearings on AI and sets forth recommendations for moving forward,” Hurd and Kelly wrote. “Underlying these recommendations is the recognition the United States cannot maintain its global leadership in AI absent political leadership from Congress and the executive branch. Therefore, the Subcommittee recommends increased engagement on AI by Congress and the administration.” According to the White Paper, under current trends the United States is soon slated to be outpaced in research and development investments by countries like China that have prioritized artificial intelligence investment. “Particularly concerning is the prospect of an authoritarian country, such as Russia or China, overtaking the United States in AI. As the Subcommittee's hearings showed, AI is likely to have a significant impact in cybersecurity, and American competitiveness in AI will be critical to ensuring the United States does not lose any decisive cybersecurity advantage to other nation-states,” Hurd and Kelly wrote. Hurd characterized the Chinese investment in AI as a race with the U.S. “It's a race, we all know this, and one of the things we need [is] a national strategy, similar to what we've seen in the conversations around quantum computing yesterday at the White House. What we saw almost a decade ago when it came to nanotechnology. And part of that strategy does include increasing basic research, opening up data sets and making sure the U.S. is playing a part, leader on ethics when it comes to artificial intelligence,” said Hurd in a Sept. 25 press call. The paper applauded current investments in R&D, such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's creation of the Artificial Intelligence Exploration program, and encouraged government hosting more “Grand Challenges” like those conducted by DARPA to encourage outside-government innovation. “I do believe the federal government has a role, because we're sitting on data sets that could be used as a backbone of a Grand Challenge around artificial intelligence,” said Hurd, who added that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, healthcare agencies and many other components of the federal government possess the data to administer meaningful AI competitions. “I think this would be a maybe a great opportunity for a public private partnership,” added Kelly on the press call. The paper also identified four primary challenges that can arise as AI becomes more prevalent: workforce, privacy, bias and malicious use. AI has the potential to both put portions of the workforce out of a job as more tasks become automated and increase the number of jobs for those trained to work with artificial intelligence. Hurd and Kelly called on the federal government to lead the way in adapting its workforce by planning for and investing in training programs that will enable them to transition into AI work. As with many technologies, AI has the potential to infringe on privacy, as intelligent products or systems such as virtual assistants constantly collect data on individuals. That data could be exploited by both the company that created the technology and hackers looking to steal personal information. “The growing collection and use of personal data in AI systems and applications raises legitimate concerns about privacy. As such, federal agencies should review federal privacy laws, regulations, and judicial decisions to determine how they may already apply to AI products within their jurisdiction, and—where necessary—update existing regulations to account for the addition of AI,” Hurd and Kelly wrote. The white paper also calls on federal agencies to make government data more available to the public for AI experimentation, while also ensuring that any AI algorithms used by agencies to “make consequential decisions about individuals” are “inspectable” to ensure that they operate without coded bias. According to Hurd, the question of whether and how that inspectable information would be made available to the public still needs to be asked. Finally, Hurd and Kelly called on government entities to consider how AI may be used to perpetuate cyber attacks or otherwise cause harm. However, while recommending that agencies look to existing regulation and statute and some limited changes to those statutes, the paper encouraged a similar hands off approach that the federal government took to the development of the internet. “The government should begin by first assessing whether the risks to public safety or consumers already fall within existing regulatory frameworks and, if so, consideration should be made as to whether those existing frameworks can adequately address the risks,” Hurd and Kelly wrote. “At minimum, a widely agreed upon standard for measuring the safety and security of AI products and applications should precede any new regulations. A common taxonomy also would help facilitate clarity and enable accurate accounting of skills and uses of AI.” https://www.federaltimes.com/federal-oversight/congress/2018/09/25/members-of-congress-look-to-make-ai-a-priority

All news